security forces protected the polling sites very well. the people show their bravery and defied the taliban. you have to celebrate the moment. host: this is an opinion piece the yuko wrote about the elections. what happened yesterday and how things will happen moving forward. you say each of the three candidates would be a plausible president or plausible first-round loser. each would be more comfortable -- vane west van karzai karzai. --than karzai. he had been the king of afghanistan's personal physician. well-known here.

he's to work in washington for the world bank. he was the finance minister and moved back after the fall of the taliban. they are all familiar with the west. even visitors like myself have had the chance to get to know all three of them. that part is promising. american forces to stay. they know they need help. they are less caught up in some of the back-and-forth that president karzai has had with the obama white house. they're going to have their challenges. a promisingit is top three. cnn is reporting a very heavy security presence. despite the threat by the taliban, that did not deter people from voting. the fingers were dipped in purple ink. we did see some of the violence with the death of the

photographer that was killed on friday. guest: there have been some high-profile assassinations in the weeks. they figured out that al qaeda did not get support when they bombed schools. of the taliban has gone after high profile legal targets. that is who they have wanted to strike at. they hope that would create a climate of fear. it is old-fashioned terrorism. or two things to get attention and create the sense of gloom and doom and despair. drive people out of the country and try to convince the international community that the project will not work. they had some limited success along the way. the afghan people said we are not buying that strategy. we are going to vote. host: this is the cover story of time magazine. vote and theant to

taliban wants to stop them. what america leaves behind. with thedon't agree title. the taliban has not returned. they are despised by most of the people. they are not in control of any of the population centers. the title is wrong. there are fears of their return. there are pockets of the country where they are present. the notion that they are on the way back is demonstrably wrong and not good journalism. it suggests a climate of fear that we don't want to falsely contribute to. that is a kind of headline that is tempting to put on a magazine . i don't see a basis for it. host: this is also a photograph from inside the article. the u.s. military has taken a step back. the afghan military has taken the lead in the election security. that is right.

the last time around, there were a lot of attacks on election day. with the american and nato forces in the lead. to be 150there seems attacks and they were very unsuccessful. violence was prevented and deterred. there was enough checkpoint manning and searching that they could not get in position to carry out what they wanted to. this is a violent country. i am not trying to sound overly optimistic. yesterday was a good day and an impressive day and the afghan people deserve to hear our complements for what they pulled off. this mean fors 30,000 troops in afghanistan? all three presidents have said that they would sign this agreement that would keep u.s. troops in afghanistan beyond 2014. guest: the afghans are doing 95%

of the patrolling and checkpoint manning and fighting. that is why our casualties are lower. need 10,000 and during troops. air support, they don't have an air force. we are behind on that. certain kinds of intelligence support and long-range reconnaissance and striking with f-16s or drones on targets that are farther away. they can't quite fully do this on their own yet. it will take two or three years. we are talking about an exciting presidential election. it is also creating anxiety. this is a big year of transition. karzai has to step down. you don't want the anxiety compounded by pulling all of our forces out.

they are counting on us to stay. we can do a lot less than we have been and we already are. down by twore thirds. i think we will have to stay there for a few more years. have we mishandled a relationship with president karzai? guest: that is the next one question. i think we have mishandled a fair amount of it. the obama administration has gotten most of the decisions right. they have been resolute and forthright. they were willing to stay. president obama talked about ending the war but he has done it responsibly and slowly. i want to give them a lot of credit on the policy front. the personal backs and forth with president karzai have been counterproductive. karzai deserves two thirds of

the blame. he was challenged in public that would produce reactions that we would make things worse. that has been a big mistake. that the bbc is reporting out of 12 million registered -- 7s, 7 million him cap million cast ballots. guest: we expected a heavy turnout. i would've been happy with a moderate turnout. there was such a climate of uncertainty and fear. that is why i pushed back hard against the time magazine article. so far, the government is doing a nice job of holding onto the big cities. there might be enough for a where the war is most intense. exceed might not greatly

2010. i'm happy to be wrong. host: you say that a peaceful transition to a new president looked on as legitimate is essential for several reasons. future of the stability. it maintains support for afghanistan and in the congress. it does not again become a base of terrorism against the united states like we saw in the 1980's. guest: a successful election does not make a successful country. we still need to see them have a runoff. they need to come around a new president. the new needs to form a team that will be inclusive and then he needs to do a good job improving government. they have a huge corruption problem, we have a lot of un-development in afghanistan so this is just a good election day. good election days in places --e iraq in 2005, or egypt

ended up not being the harbingers of happy days ahead. so there is a long way still to go for this to be legitimate. they will be a enough fraud in this, even if this is done in much less time and this is largely identified and corrected by independent afghan commissions, there will be enough fraud that there will be some uncertainty about who should have been elected president once we get into the second round. that means that whoever loses is going to have a big choice about what he does at that moment. thathe cry foul and decide he has a reason to call his followers into mass protest, what is he except this result as imperfect but perhaps this is as good as we are going to get and then hopefully the winner will try to include the loser in some way in government, there is talk of strengthening the role of the prime minister position and maybe the loser could take that role or have some other position in the government. there will be a long way to go

to create legitimacy. it will not just come from the good election day. when is the second round and will president karzai step down? guest: he will step down when there is new president. we will get preliminary results this month and early second round month -- early second round results next may and then they will take them out to the remote villages, and the afghan forces will take and the -- take them to the cities and so forth, with a second round in june and then another good month, month and a half to certify that and maybe you get a declared winner of the election sometime during the summer in late july or early august and then you set up the transition process by the end of august, sometime in september is the most likely inauguration. host: michael o'hanlon is a senior fellow at the brookings institution here in washington dc. our phone lines are open and we will get to your calls in just a moment. you can send us your tweets or

an e-mail at journal@ cspan.org. joining us from new hampshire -- good morning. one question, are women allowed to vote during the voting process? for the peoplear that voted, with the taliban, possibly, for creating richer fusion for those who voted? great questions. first, women voted. and going back to the last elections, they voted then. with what percentage of the total vote was women, this is 20-30%, similar to the numbers of the student population. we are seeing movement towards equality. in the certainly going right direction and women certainly voted. in terms of fear, yes, there was

fear, but 7 million people voted anyway, and they voted knowing full well they would have to dip their fingers into different kinds of ink, one of which -- in two different kinds of ink, one of which would allow the taliban to see who voted, but people are still willing to take the risk of their own personal safety being put at risk because they believed so much in the democratic process. however this turns out and recognizing the imperfections, i would give a big complement to the afghan people for their bravery and commitment to democracy. >> this tweet from john kerry, who said the upcoming election in afghanistan is afghan owned and afghan led, a proud moment for the people and their history. >> that is well said by the secretary and he has been admirable, very effective in afghanistan even as a senator.

building a kind of relationship with president karzai that we have too little of, maintaining the ability to have respectful but still amicable disagreements at times. but still be able to work through a lot of tough issues. secretary kerry has been helpful on this issue. gamelwe want to thank kim from joining us, from the associated press. joining us from kabul. we appreciate you being with us. guest: >> thank you. host: give us a sense of how things unfolded yesterday. what would you see around the streets of kabul and the rest of afghanistan? guest: the excitement was palpable and there was a clear difference from 2009. people actually wanted to vote and they were standing in line and it was raining outside. they were standing in the mud. of men and women. -- just at polling stations

but some of them were. there were hundreds of people wanting to have their say, and the difference is that people were actually choosing the president. that made a big difference on and others of kabul cities. i will say in some areas, especially, obviously areas controlled by the taliban, i would say the majority of the areas, turnout was high. afghans you talked residents, how significantly do they view this vote yesterday? it wasthey felt significant, they really felt like this was a historic vote. they were knowledgeable of the threat of the violence. high-profileen attacks in recent weeks -- there wasly in kabul, a rise in violence but still we saw the record turnout.

we don't have figures show that we know that more than 7 million people voted. afghanistan -- we only have enough to make a census since 2001, so we think that there are only 13 million eligible voters but the turnout was high. i have michael o'hanlon who will weigh in as well. he may be earlier point that the fact that this vote even happened made it significant. guest: that's right. a lot of people give president karzai credit for that. he has earned their faith in recent months. down,voluntarily stepping which is a huge achievement and afghanistan. there is a history of installed leaders, with taliban rule at monarchy. i agree.: resident karzai, we put him on a pedestal in 2002 and decided he would be the man in afghanistan.

we did not help them build a strong army but we gave them a lot of money. we gave him more lords to make the country -- we get the money to buy off warlords to keep the country stable but then we call this corruption. the american views on karzai have changed more than karzai himself. he is a leader whose time has come and gone, he has had some accomplishments but it is good he is stepping down. he has done some good things and one more thing with letting the hastion process unfold, he also cap and ethnic cohesion in the country, he has had a mixed ticket of vice president and cabinet officials and governors representing not just the group where he comes from, but also zbek, but this is one nation, for all of the stresses. i am not here to lionize him too

much, but remember for all of his flaws he has done some good things and he has some strengths. host: let me ask you about the voting itself. done, did they use paper ballots and when will the final vote tally be available? guest: this is interesting, they use paper ballots. one ballot for president, and one for the proconsul's. showeders came in and their id cards, they had to have voter registration cards. they get their finger in the ink, which the international officials have described as almost dangerous. iny also dipped their finger other ink so it would be visible with ultraviolet rays. they went to the voting booth,

which was mostly cardboard. they marked their ballots and then they came out and put their ballots in a box. excited, everyone who voted was excited, waving their ink-stained fingers. the results are questionable, we thought that there would be partial results today, but now the officials say this is not the case because these are being transported and then the result tallies -- these are being taken in kabul. some candidates are giving estimates. ullah is claiming a high percentage of the vote, based on the result tallies at individual stations. but for full results of this will be at least one week or so. host: final question for you, othersshington post" and

say the u.s. military is invisible with voting today, on that front, what is the military able to do and what have they done? staying in the background but they were involved. many were involved in this is a iraqis.ness with the they are involved with the arab power. somewhere at the boxes and some of the central headquarters in kabul and some in the more remote provinces. countries and the provinces, but you did not see u.s. troops out there yesterday. on standby. i talked to a couple of generals, and they said that the afghans have them and the airpower was also on standby, attack helicopters and warplanes. had tonot heard if they use them, that i have had no reports that they did. host: kim gamel is the afghan

bureau chief or the associate press. nike for being with us. she joins us from kabul. we continue our conversation with michael o'hanlon from the brookings institution. we go to larry joining us on the republican line. with all dueanlon, respect, personal outrage does not trump physics nor does it knowledge and the evidence that they tore down building seven on 9/11. host: this is a different topic and we move on to jesse in michigan. caller: >> good morning. good morning. i have heard of different in afghanistan -- in afghanistan, i want to ask -- what is -- what is so special

about afghanistan, all these wars going on. thank you, jesse, we will get a response. why afghanistan? guest: there have been a lot of conflicts in afghanistan and in the 19th century, we talked about the great game with the british and russian empires colliding in afghanistan, and standing up for their own country and pushing out these foreign powers. but in terms of the modern era it does begin with the soviet invasion. ae soviets tried to install true communist government, in the late 1970's, so the outside world again intervened in afghanistan. we decided we had to oppose that hartley for the good of the afghan people, but also for our own interests. we wanted to stop the soviets before they moved farther south into iran. we gave a lot of arms to the

afghan resistance fighters, and once the soviets were driven out, we said, we are done. we left afghanistan to our own -- to their own devices. there is no government in power, and we did not care. this was the end of the cold war, the first bush administration, and we kept our hands off. this was a bit of a mistake on our part, as well as in strategic terms because the minute we -- they compost something that we wanted, we left them to their own devices. later on, the chickens came home to roost. that was the front in which the 9/11 attacks were planned. at this point you can say this is becoming ancient history and al qaeda has bigger sanctuaries in pakistan or iraq or syria today, so why do we even care. that is the simple answer and i would like to keep it that way, that afghanistan no longer has

al qaeda sanctuaries still to be true. i would like to preserve that a combo spent by giving the afghans enough strength so that they can hold together their own country. we are justs is about their and they show that yesterday, doing 95% of the work yet again. they are doing 95% of the work and taking 95% of the casualties of all coalition forces and yesterday, they were the ones securing the polling places. we are well on our way to an exit strategy. host: the defense department reported in march, no casualties in afghanistan. guest: no american for tallies, and that is the first time in six or seven years. that really proves that things are getting better for us but the war remains intense between the taliban and the afghans. let me not be confusing, but i'm so optimistic i want to pooh-poh oh the threat. casualtiesare taking

at 400 per month based on the latest data. they are fighting hard and losing a lot of people. but they can recruit offering jobs people need and afghans are willing to fight for their country. host: how is the afghan economy and what is being done to improve it? guest: the main concern is not to slide into recession. what we have to worry about as we have been pumping in a lot of money to prop up proper -- property values and building roads and schools and health clinics and this has led to a higher standard of living for the afghan people over the last decade. but now we are reducing and the hard thing now is how to avoid the afghan economy slipping into recession in the short or medium term, as the amount of external stimulus declines. this is inevitable and also has a positive silver lining, which is less corruption. there will be less of our money

flowing into a country they can't really absorb it. i am willing to see this experiment, but it will lead to a short-term, flat economy within afghanistan for a couple of years. host: this is online and distributed through the "l.a. times," what to expect when results come in. you say that, when results are given -- when complaints about fraud are voiced by the camps of liver fails in the first round, we should not jump to conclusions or declare the afghan project a failure. >> we should see if we can go to them -- let me say one moral -- one more word about them. they have members who are appointed by the president, people are worried about how resident karzai has tried to influence the membership or their approach. but the last time around they took their jobs seriously. i was an election observer in 2009 and 2010. threw not the ones that

out one million ballots that were deemed ultimately to be fraudulent. it was the afghans themselves who found that fraud, and took remedy. and they will do it again, i am fairly optimistic. we have to see how that plays out. we fully worry about how much fraud that there was, or how this should be addressed, we have to give these independent electoral commissions in afghanistan time to do things like check and see if every single vote in a given place was made with the same kind of handwritten mark, that is the indicator that there was cheating. to throw the power away all of those ballots, and that is what they did last time, and that is what i think they will be trying to do in the coming weeks as necessary. host: kevin denver said, how will the afghans continue their support without dollars from the u.s.? guest: they will need some dollars. we have been spending $100 million -- $100 billion in afghanistan, both on ourselves

and the afghan security forces, we will continue to spend -- need to continue to spend $2 billion or $3 billion per year to help support the afghan police. this is less than $100 billion, but this is a lot and will make them one of the top recipients in the world for the next few years. i think the price will pay because they have shown they are willing to fight and die for their country but they don't have money yet. and if we want to keep doing that we will have to allow other international donors to provide much of the money for -- for that effort. roycecongressman ed issued a statement over the weekend saying that the elections percent a fresh start for the afghan people, and he also says, the karzai government was a case study in how not to win international support. guest: again, we talked about how this was partly a u.s. problem as well. he said, for example, in 2009 -- the elections, president karzai, everyone in afghanistan knew

that he was going to win or was extremely likely to win a second term. richard holbrook, working on behalf of the obama administration tried to get other people to run against president karzai. there was a reason for that because they wanted to see a vigorous afghan democracy, but there was the position that we really wanted to see president karzai defeated. robert gates, in his book, basically said as much. they wanted to send somebody to defeat karzai because they did not want him. but those kinds of disagreements, when they are aired in public, such as in esther gates and his otherwise fine book, are memorable in afghanistan. they read our press. we have public disagreements with the afghan president, it is something that contributes to a negative relationship. i will not put all of this on mr. karzai. he has made some big mistakes and failed to rein in the corruption, including from his own family, but we contributed as well and we need a fresh

start. host: we have this tweet, from the pottery barn theory, we broke it so we have to pay to fix it. and we brokeke it, it in the 1980's for strategic reasons. the soviets broke it, they invaded afghanistan. andoutside world came in messed with afghan politics in a big way. and then we defeated the soviets working with the mujahedin to essentially bleed them out. it turned afghanistan into their vietnam. and then we washed our hands of the whole thing and we did not care. between the superpowers have their confrontation during the cold war, and what followed, the country was ripped apart. the larger extent -- the outside world owes the afghans, even on moral grounds. this was also done on strategic grounds. al qaeda had a sanctuary in this country from which they planned

the 9/11 attacks and from which they would continue to operate. and they could come back if the afghan government is not able to hold onto power. is a graduate of new york and princeton university, and the author of "bending history." neither is our wars or sanctuary on the crimean peninsula -- guest: close enough. i had the great honor of doing one of these with an afghan woman, i have been about one dozen books but on this i did one of them. she was one of the great reformers who moved back to afghanistan after 9/11. she started to go back before. and those pockets of the country that were not held by the taliban -- since she has moved back. that is a case study and there are a lot of afghans like that. this is an admirable people and an inspiring group. i am proud of what they did

yesterday. host: our guest is a senior fellow at brookings, you can get his readings online, and his twitter handle is michaelbo hanlon. mccann,es us from illinois. thank you. how big of a factor is opium production in this election? don't think it is a factor in the election but it is a factor in afghanistan. in general. despite our efforts is still the biggest poppy seed producer in the world, taking over two thirds of poppy production and in the parts of the south -- and in parts of the south that is a major fund for the taliban and other criminal networks. it is a big part of the economy, especially in south afghanistan, and that is why the taliban has maintained sources of revenue and kept themselves going.

that it that sense factors into afghanistan's future. i do not think it was an issue yesterday, i don't know of any suspicions that the major candidates were on a drug cartel payroll, but i think it is still fueling the sense of lawlessness in the country and contributing to the resources that the taliban can employ to attack the government. as hopeful as i am for their future, the taliban will probably wish they were in these rural areas and in the south, opium helps them maintain the coffers to carry out their attacks. host: before his work in academia and brookings, he was an analyst for the congressional budget office. ryan joins us from ohio, the republican line. caller: i am definitely happy with the way that things went yesterday in afghanistan, to walk around with that purple stain on your finger is a big deal. they show that -- anyway.

is whatm curious about we have been doing in iraq is breakinghe same thing, something and leaving it and i have heard stories about how things are not going quite as well, there is a report on this now. i want to know how they are doing over there by your opinion. there are elections and everything. other side of this coin, i think. anyway i want to know your opinion on that. more violenceas over the weekend in iraq. this is a related question and i had a chance to talk to president karzai about this and he was persuaded that because we pulled out in a rack and things began to go downhill, this is all the more reason that we are desperate to stay in afghanistan, so he has leverage over us because as a superpower we must -- we must want a base in his country. i think he is mistaken to see that we are desperate for bases to helpnistan,

afghanistan stabilize their own government and into occasionally do an attack over the border into pakistan if we see an al qaeda target. but with a rack going downhill going downhill, and with us being partially successful in afghanistan, and also al qaeda has the way to move from one place to another. when you talk about the al qaeda sanctuary, it is pakistan, afghanistan, iraq and yemen. i am glad that president obama slow down our departure from iraq and at the parliament had give most legal means to stay longer, that i think we probably made them safe in being out of there. s made the decision on their own and we have to think , pakistan, syria afghanistan and yemen. al qaeda will look for

opportunities to have new sanctuaries to carry out attacks and this is an ongoing struggle against this movement. host: our next caller is from grove city, democrats line, bill. caller: i have a couple of questions for mr. o'hanlon. first i would like to make a brief statement. we have been there for many has done and been involved in tremendous destruction, let's give the people at chance to decide for themselves. the government wants us out, a sizable proportion of the it hasion wants us out, become absurd that we continue year after year after year, it is time that we leave afghanistan and let them find their own solution. which they will. it may not be the solution that we want, it will be there solution.

guest: with respect, we saw what we happened when we pulled out fast in the 1980's and the 1990's and the country fell apart. the afghans don't want that again. the overwhelming portion of afghans want us to stay. this was seen during the big national meeting with all eight presidential candidates yesterday, they favor an ongoing american and international presence because they know that they need the help. but i agree with the broader point, we can have our disagreements in the united states, but ultimately we should give the afghans a little bit of time to figure out what they want, and we should not put too much pressure on them in the meantime to race to a decision this month or this week because they are still involved in a political transition. we need to continue this quietly, and have conversations quietly with the candidates so they can move fast when they are ready to make a decision. we have to have some base to stay beyond december or we will have to leave and if we leave,

there is a higher risk of the country collapsing. it would be nice to see a more ultimatelyion, but we have to make the -- let the afghans make the request. this country is important to both peoples, both the afghans and americans and they still need some modest amount of ongoing american help. michael o'hanlon, you have written about the crimean peninsula. i want to talk about another topic. this is from the "new york times ," chuck hagel is in japan. this ties in the crimean situation with new concerns in long promised's to support japan from hostile nations has suddenly come under the microscope, the american response to the russian takeover of crimea, which the president condemned while ruling out american military action, has caused deep concerns among the already skittish japanese officials. know, i think i will

give the obama administration some good credit. they had to strike a balance and you had to be firm in dealing has donen and what he but you also did not want to so overdo it that you created a complete rift between moscow and washington. andneeded to show americans asian allies and european allies, if he does this in a place we don't have an alliance with, like the ukraine, and even if the russians think they have claim to this area, at some level, this kind of forcible annexation is not tolerable. but there is no point in disrupting our agreements with russia on other issues, trying to stop iran it was a very bad thing that he did, but it was not genocide, it was not a mass invasion. historicalcertain claims he could make even if he

invented certain of the other ones. my point is, we have got to find inalance on how you respond the case of crimea. it cannot be too much or too little peer they have done a nice job sanctioning some of the key putin cronies, making sure they pay the price. i think you explain that to our asian allies and they will understand we have been firm, but we have also been balanced. we have been restrained. this is not world war iii and we should not treat it as such. the same principle should apply to their disputes where if the chinese were to carry out aggression, as they sometimes have done, we need a firmer response, but we do not want general were over that either. the stakes are not worth it. we need to set -- we need to find that -- the stakes.

from arkansas, good morning. caller: with all the money the u.s. has pumped into afghanistan, will it request for afghan natural resources to pay their debt? i appreciate your time. thank you. good question. the afghans do have a lot of minerals. the question is, who was willing to develop them, who is willing to put their own mining companies into what is still a moderately dangerous lace and develop those resources over time. i would welcome any major mining company from any major company doing this. a littlese have done but have been slow about it. most countries do not see this as a great investment. companiesn needs some to want to come in and do joint development projects because there is not another basis of revenue besides produce.

canadian andan and russian and chinese mining companies move and because afghans themselves need it. any speculation what president karzai does next? a lot of it will depend. let's say the most likely outcome will be either dr. winning. it depends a lot which one wins. he worked for karzai recently and they have an ok relationship. pretty good. they both say good things about each other in private. they have been strong adversaries over the years, although they also work together for a while. to maintain a workable relationship. i do not think we will see a situation where abdullah would kick karzai out of the country as some leaders do in that part of the world when their predecessor is no longer in office and cannot protect

himself with the trappings of power. that will be a more complicated relationship. in that case, it is not as obvious to me karzai will have a big future role. maybeing he might do, president karzai at that point could be the leader of the process, a traditional mechanism by which afghans come together to come up with ideas for the future, and then interject those into the political process with karzai helping to shepherd the ideas from the annual meeting into the parliament into the presidential office. it is one more idea. he has got international stature. a lot of countries still have respect for him. he could be some type of u.n. ambassador rice. it is an important question. part of why he is willing to step down and not try to orchestrate a change to the constitution that would allow him to remain is because he has some hope of playing future role and i have to give him credit.

a very flawed presidency in many ways, but on the election process itself so far, i am modestly encouraged. >> we will conclude on that note. look at the elections in afghanistan and what is next for the united states. research director at the brookings institution and aut >> on the next "washington to start afforts centrist party in american politics. then, the health reporter from "the hill" talks about what the sign-up figure of 7.1 million enrollees in federal and state exchanges means, and what is ahead for the health care law. and the efforts in the senate to revive the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act, which expired in december last year.

washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow, the alliance in support of the afghan people reviews the elections and what happens next. >> david drucker is the senior congressional correspondent for "the washington examiner," joining us for a look at the legislative week ahead. can you tell us what is in the paul ryan budget proposal? >> i think you will see the debate throughout the week. they will vote on it before recess toward the end of the week. i think what is most notable about the budget is the fact

that it increased defense spending beyond what the president has asked for. aven republicans have been little divided over defense spending in recent years, and the fact that they have been very concerned about the budget, even where it relates to defense spending, i thought that was interesting. i suspect you will see the usual debate over the budget, with democrats saying all sorts of horrible things, republicans saying wonderful things. at the end of the day, it is likely to pass, and it will go nowhere from there, but it gives the republicans and agenda to run on. given the contrast with fiscal issues with democrats, it has been very important. >> the gop is trying to break free from the obstructionist label. what type of lobbying efforts among republican members are going to get the budget passed? >> i do not think it is a tough sell.

to passans are eager something, anything that can againsty are not just the president's agenda. it was interesting to note that the first thing he said about a conference call in the past few days was that people have asked him, why are you bothering to do this in an election year, when it is not going to pass a democratic senate? of times,number unprompted, that the republican party needs to be a proposition party.not an opposition if you can get beyond the jingoism, republicans are sensitive to the fact that they are portrayed often by the president as the party of no, not having any new conservative ideas to help the middle class, to help americans. they do not feel that way. they do not believe that is the case. a lot of republicans on the hill want to legislate.

that is one of the reasons you are seeing them come up with a budget. although chairman ryan consulted with many of them, it is not like he slapped it together. the way it usually works with this is that he consults with members as he puts it together. >> or paper also has an article on how house democrats will make .aul ryan's budget >> democrats simply have a different view of budgeting at the federal level than do republicans. there is not much they agree on.

the marie-ryan budget agreement we are living under right now is notable for the fact that the sides were able to come together to pass this thing. when you are looking at a budget , there is not this reason for democrats to support it. we want to embrace this. there is so much in the house republican budget that democrats do not like. there is no reason for them to politically support what they do not like. i do not think they will see that. how did senators finally reach agreement with the vote on unemployment benefits thursday, on moving ahead to final passage? and what is likely to happen to the measure when it moves to the house? >> you have senate republicans that have been negotiating on unemployment extension. in certain states, it is

something members felt was very much needed, and their constituents support it. you have a senator of nevada, a republican, ago with jack reed, a democrat. gethad other democrats involved. even though most senate republicans did not support this particular extension for several reasons, you had enough republicans that you were going to be able to get to 60 votes. when they finally got around to figuring out how to pay for it or what other cuts to make in the government to support the cost of the unemployment insurance extension, and you figured out a few other things, you are able to get the five republicans he needed to get the thing across the finish line. the house was another matter. what house republicans would want, i think, to pass this extension, would be the attachment of some of their jobs-related ills, reforms to jobs programs. you have to get senate democrats to agree to do something in that

could so that this thing get through that. it would only get to the house in that way. republicansme house that are from some of the same states that have been affected by unemployment. republican senators are at least asking their leadership to consider a way to get this done. whether or not that happens, i do not know. republicans in the house do not think the extension is good for job creation. they think it hurts the people it is designed to help. >> the senate could squeeze in work on legislation dealing with pay equity, along with raising the minimum wage. what is the status of those bills? some issues still with senate democrats that relates to the minimum wage. i do not believe they are on the same page. until they do, that is really the first step. we need to get to a democratic senate.

i do not think you are going to see much chance of it getting through a republican house. they think it actually is going to damage job creation, cause more unemployment, if you raise the minimum wage. of philosophy and public policy, republicans simply do not like it will stop -- like it. it may have some legs in the democratic senate, but i do not know that it gets through there. in the republican house, i do not see it. >> the senior congressional correspondent for "the washington examiner." thank you for joining us today. in theress gavel back session monday. the houses in with legislative business at 2:00. they will debate three suspension bills and legislation that would change how the budget is calculated. they are also scheduled to work on congressman paul ryan's 2015 budget resolution. first votes are scheduled after 6:30. in the senate, the session

starts at 2:00 eastern. debate on extending unemployment insurance benefits for five months. at 5:30, they will hold a roll call vote on final passage of the legislation. you can watch coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span 2. us take a case like hsbc, it's got a $1.9 billion settlement living at them i guess a year ago. deferredt of the restitution agreement for hsbc, they admitted that they had laundered as much as $850 million for central and south american drug cartels. not only did they commit minor financial infractions, technical infractions -- we are talking about an organization that was operating at the top of the illegal narcotics pyramid.

this is a major criminal enterprise. and they admitted it. if they did not find the evidence to put those people in jail, that is on them. that is a failure of the regulatory system. if you have somebody you know is guilty, admitted they were guilty, who were in league with truly dangerous and violent people, helping them out with the worst kinds of behaviors and could be involved with, nobody spends a day in jail. that is outrageous. look at it compared to who does go to jail in america. that is people at the very bottom of the illegal drug pyramid, the consumers, people who are caught selling dime bags. they go to jail for real-time. they go to jail for five years, 10 years. leadingame time we are

hsbc off with a total walk -- nobody pays any individual penalty in that case. >> matt taibbi. , "thetest >> joining us is jason furman. thank you for being with us here on "newsmakers." joining me is damian paletta and james tankersley. let me begin with the senate debate. john boehner says the senate bill does not do enough to create jobs and it is a dealbreaker for house republican. do think you a compromise? >> let me tell you why i think extending unemployment insurance is a job creator. it it